Thread Tools

Must have been that liberal "activist" judge to finagled the constitution again, oh wait she was an appointee of George W...

Anyways a 35 year old single parent veteran is going to college, finishing up his degree, and he has a son and the state wanted to take away his welfare benefits because he refused drug testing, so he went to the ACLU and they prevailed. The head of the Fla. ACLU commented, "This is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, that you can't condition getting some benefit from the government by surrendering your constitutional rights."

What is interesting is the perception that all welfare recipients sit around all day getting high.. while 2300 refused to take the test, of the 4,000 people who took the test only 108 were found to have drugs in their system(2.5%).

Florida "had to reimburse welfare applicants $113,037 for the cost of the test, regardless of whether they passed it or not. And then, they had to pay out just shy of $595,000 in retroactive benefits to families who were initially denied welfare because they either failed the test or refused to take it." But of course this was all budgeted for..

With that $364.00 monthly TANF payment for a family of four, bet those 60" flatscreens were flying off other shelf, so they could watch the game with a filet mignon and caviar buffets...

That criminal governor rick scott just took a hit to the wallet since he ownes part of the company that makes the test kits.

Click to expand...

That would be a conflict of interest, Mr. Peepers, gee whiz!!!!... Ethics do not matter as long as they get them cheating welfare baztards, the pols line their pockets or create an election sound byte.. that family of four who gets $364.00 a month is really getting ahead in that system.

Must have been that liberal "activist" judge to finagled the constitution again, oh wait she was an appointee of George W...

Anyways a 35 year old single parent veteran is going to college, finishing up his degree, and he has a son and the state wanted to take away his welfare benefits because he refused drug testing, so he went to the ACLU and they prevailed. The head of the Fla. ACLU commented, "This is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, that you can't condition getting some benefit from the government by surrendering your constitutional rights."

What is interesting is the perception that all welfare recipients sit around all day getting high.. while 2300 refused to take the test, of the 4,000 people who took the test only 108 were found to have drugs in their system(2.5%).

Florida "had to reimburse welfare applicants $113,037 for the cost of the test, regardless of whether they passed it or not. And then, they had to pay out just shy of $595,000 in retroactive benefits to families who were initially denied welfare because they either failed the test or refused to take it." But of course this was all budgeted for..

With that $364.00 monthly TANF payment for a family of four, bet those 60" flatscreens were flying off other shelf, so they could watch the game with a filet mignon and caviar buffets...

Why did the 2300(over a full third) refuse he test....righteous protest? Would it be reasonable to assume that a good number of those that refused did so because they knew they did have drugs in their system? I think a you'd find a much higher percentage of drug use among the ones that refused the test. Yes a good number of recipients do sit around getting high. At the same time I think a lot of people getting other government benefits, including tax cuts etc. also get high. If welfare recipients have to get tested then so do everyone else that benefits monetarily from the government. I don't think that's ever going to happen so i don't think anyone should be tested

Here's another reason to legalize and tax marijuana. Stop draining the system with drug tests and instead tax it and add money into the system.

I have question though. How can anyone say Bush was so blatantly right wing partisan when it seems all of his judge appointees rule otherwise?

Why did the 2300(over a full third) refuse he test....righteous protest? Would it be reasonable to assume that a good number of those that refused did so because they knew they did have drugs in their system? I think a you'd find a much higher percentage of drug use among the ones that refused the test. Yes a good number of recipients do sit around getting high. At the same time I think a lot of people getting other government benefits, including tax cuts etc. also get high. If welfare recipients have to get tested then so do everyone else that benefits monetarily from the government. I don't think that's ever going to happen so i don't think anyone should be tested

Here's another reason to legalize and tax marijuana. Stop draining the system with drug tests and instead tax it and add money into the system.

I have question though. How can anyone say Bush was so blatantly right wing partisan when it seems all of his judge appointees rule otherwise?

Click to expand...

Perhaps the judge thing has to do with upholding the consitution, and not about partisan politics.. messing with folks urines is serious business, and should not be taken lightly.

Not sure why the 2300 refused, perhaps there was some grass roots organizing or perhaps many "toked up" in the past 30-45 days, we will never know.

They should test if the state wants to. If you're going to accept someone else's money, then you also must accept the strings that come attached to it. Don't want to take the test, then dont accept someone else's hard earned money. To me, it's that easy. Now, do I think that half the people collecting welfare are on drugs? Of course not. That doesn't change the basic point that it isn't their money. If a state, and it's people, feel it's necessary that eligibility require a drug free component, so be it.

Yes, only in Florida could a politician have connects to a company that gets an advantage from said politician.

I mean, that pretty much is the way our political systems works now.

Click to expand...

I get it, and agree that the majority of politicians do not act ethically. Florida elects an individual who was CEO of the company found guilty of the largest case of Medicare fraud in U.S. history. Then, implements a drug testing policy in which he (wife/whatever) has ownership of the company doing the testing. Do not care what party this guy is affiliated with, he's scum. If you want to defend him that speaks volumes.

I get it, and agree that the majority of politicians do not act ethically. Florida elects an individual who was CEO of the company found guilty of the largest case of Medicare fraud in U.S. history. Then, implements a drug testing policy in which he (wife/whatever) has ownership of the company doing the testing. Do not care what party this guy is affiliated with, he's scum. If you want to defend him that speaks volumes.

Click to expand...

No, what speaks volumes is how you decipher my post into defending the idiot in Florida.

I get it, and agree that the majority of politicians do not act ethically. Florida elects an individual who was CEO of the company found guilty of the largest case of Medicare fraud in U.S. history. Then, implements a drug testing policy in which he (wife/whatever) has ownership of the company doing the testing. Do not care what party this guy is affiliated with, he's scum. If you want to defend him that speaks volumes.

.... If a state, and it's people, feel it's necessary that eligibility require a drug free component, so be it.

Click to expand...

Not if it's unconstitutional. There is a valid arguement that the state has no right to require you to submit bodily fluids when there is no reasonable suspicion of any wrongdoing and that may incriminate oneself (4th and 5th Ammendments). Since the state is issuing the funds, they should not be permitted to make this requirement. You can't mandate or vote for something that voilated the Bill of Rights or any other right given by the constitution, court rulings notwithstanding.

... If you're going to accept someone else's money, then you also must accept the strings that come attached to it. Don't want to take the test, then dont accept someone else's hard earned money. To me, it's that easy. Now, do I think that half the people collecting welfare are on drugs? Of course not. That doesn't change the basic point that it isn't their money. If a state, and it's people, feel it's necessary that eligibility require a drug free component, so be it.

Click to expand...

Maybe it is their money. Maybe they just got on welfare after paying taxes all their adult life? Lots of corporations take federal subsidies which are tax $$$ that's "not their own" money and none of their owners are required to take piss tests for drugs (wouldn't that be fun?). The purposes of drug testing has only been justified in situations where the person is responsible for the safety of others and are therefor required by their company's insurance company to submit. I still disagree with that policy but it seems to be water under the bridge at this point.